The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 26, 1999, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

        After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

        1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of § 1-200(1), G.S. [formerly § 1-18a(1), G.S.]

        2. By letter dated October 15, 1998, the complainant requested that the respondent superintendent provide her with access to the student sports contracts signed by five named students.

        3. By letter dated October 20, 1998, the respondent superintendent denied the request described in paragraph 2, above, contending that federal law prohibits such disclosure.

        4. By letter dated October 26, 1998, the complainant disagreed with the respondent superintendent about the applicability of federal law to her request for the sports contracts.

        5. By letter dated October 30, 1998, the respondent assistant superintendent informed the complainant that her request was being denied on the basis of § 1-210(b)(17), G. S. [formerly § 1-19(b)(17), G.S.]

        6. By letter dated November 15, 1998 and filed November 17, 1998, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying her access to the requested records, and requested the imposition of maximum civil penalties.

        7. It is found that, at all times pertinent to this matter, the requested records as described in paragraph 2, above, were not in existence. It is further found that a one page document relating to one student’s violation of the school sports contract which was provided to the Commission for an in camera review at the hearing in this matter and which has been designated by the Commission as in-camera document #s FIC1998-359-A, is not within the scope of the request described in paragraph 2, above. .

        8. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate § 1-210(a), G.S. [formerly § 1-19(a), G.S.], in this matter.

        The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

        1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

        Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

July 14, 1999.

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

Joan Coe
26 Whitcomb Drive
Simsbury, CT 06070
Joseph Townsley,
Superintendent of Schools,
Simsbury Public Schools;
and David H. Mattson, Jr.,
Assistant Superintendent of
Schools, Simsbury Public Schools
c/o Atty. Thomas N. Sullivan
Sullivan, Schoen, Campane &
Connon, LLC
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-4286
 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-359FD/mrb/07151999